BBC slagging drones
- Thread starter TMAK
- Start date
N017RW
Premium Pilot
Check out this review of the doco Britain’s Next Air Disaster? Drones review – the threat is terrifyingly real
Sensationally named 'Britain's Next Air Disaster', it's a BBC documentary which paints a very one sided picture of drone use. It focuses on the danger to air traffic, the use of drones in terrorism and assassination, and how the state can take measures to bring drones down when they go rogue.
You should be able to find it on iPlayer. If you're in the US I'm led to believe you could use a VPN with a UK endpoint to watch. This may be against the law in your jurisdiction.
Last edited:
The programme is available until 2-August on BBC iPlayer but I think it will be limited access to UK only.
I missed the first part and caught it from where an ex-military sniper had a go at shooting with a .30? big bullet and matching scope. 5 shots missed @ 300 metres. Bring it closer to 200 meters and another 4 shots to finally kill the P4! Not bad for a white target against a green hill background,
So bring out the double crosshairs and detect the operator as he controls the P4. Much like WW2 radio detection.
Next, bring out the Mad Max dune buggy with mounted track and lock system .... and then blast the P4 with a directional laser.
I was wondering what DJI was doing with their redundant stock! They showed another half dozen P4’s which had been blasted earlier.
The programme overall was a lesson on scare tactics about weaponising a drone, any drone, but almost every one shown was a P4. Just to make sure that everyone was ‘educated’ in drone recognition. There was a small racing drone flown fast in FPV with Fat Shark. The guy flew it like a champ around some old aeroplanes. It ‘scared’ the presenter so it must have terrified anyone who just watched the programme by chance. After all, the BBC is known to be an unbiased reporter of the facts.?
Joe Public must be digging a bomb shelter after watching this Star Wars comes to town.
I might be lynched on sight if I go for a flyby now that we are getting some decent weather.
Endov rant! Alan.
I missed the first part and caught it from where an ex-military sniper had a go at shooting with a .30? big bullet and matching scope. 5 shots missed @ 300 metres. Bring it closer to 200 meters and another 4 shots to finally kill the P4! Not bad for a white target against a green hill background,
So bring out the double crosshairs and detect the operator as he controls the P4. Much like WW2 radio detection.
Next, bring out the Mad Max dune buggy with mounted track and lock system .... and then blast the P4 with a directional laser.
I was wondering what DJI was doing with their redundant stock! They showed another half dozen P4’s which had been blasted earlier.
The programme overall was a lesson on scare tactics about weaponising a drone, any drone, but almost every one shown was a P4. Just to make sure that everyone was ‘educated’ in drone recognition. There was a small racing drone flown fast in FPV with Fat Shark. The guy flew it like a champ around some old aeroplanes. It ‘scared’ the presenter so it must have terrified anyone who just watched the programme by chance. After all, the BBC is known to be an unbiased reporter of the facts.?
Joe Public must be digging a bomb shelter after watching this Star Wars comes to town.
I might be lynched on sight if I go for a flyby now that we are getting some decent weather.
Endov rant! Alan.
N017RW
Premium Pilot
I know it's a bunch of hot air, but I know quite a few deer hunters here in West Virginia that could knock it down at 300 meters. We have shooting ranges everywhere. Most are in our own backyards.Even our university which is 20 miles from me, is way ahead of every other college in the NCAA for national Rifle championships. We start really young here.? Yes the people here are very friendly and I don't worry about crime like I did in Florida. Don't even think about breaking into someone's house here. Big mistake.
Shoot4fun
Drone bum...
It wasn't broadly negative - that's just the over-defensive reaction of some people who seem convinced that anything about drones is about them. It didn't ignore the many positive applications, but It was specifically about the threat of collision with manned aircraft and the possibilities, realized and unrealized so far, of using sUAS for terrorist purposes. I didn't like the presentation style - not the Horizon style that I remember and much closer to the US-style that apparently requires constant over-dramatization. I lost count of how many times the ex-military presenter said it was terrifying.
The factual content also had some notable errors and omissions on the subject of jamming, and rather glossed over the problems of using either the RF or laser-based defeat systems. It was both unsatisfying and somewhat suspect that they were unable to show any actual defeat tests due, apparently, to the technology being illegal to use. It's not really credible that the companies involved have never been able to test the systems in representative environments, and if they had successful test results then why would they not be eager to show them? They also talked about jamming GPS but implied that it wouldn't work against automated flights. Conclusion, that was not really explored - it's easy enough to swamp the control link but on an automated flight the FC won't care about that, and jamming GPS reception will stop an automated flight. But that's very hard to do without unacceptably impacting the navigational systems that are rather important around airports.
Overall interesting but not especially insightful.
Last edited:
BBC is negative about:
Drones
Over 75 s
Brexit
etc. etc.
BBC is positive about:
Over -staffing at the top
Inflated salaries for "the boys"
Rubbish programs
Drones
Over 75 s
Brexit
etc. etc.
BBC is positive about:
Over -staffing at the top
Inflated salaries for "the boys"
Rubbish programs
It is the Guardian Newspaper www and again ‘us’ in the UK are pretty selective who sees news items without (paid) subscription. Gotta pay for the cliff dive of paper copy sales somehow.
Alan.
Pah! Over here we don’t need no guns. [emoji16]
Have you not heard of the ancient Scottish martial art of “Hodderum Hiederum”?
You hodderum an a’ll hiederum! [emoji23]??
Last edited:
Shoot4fun
Drone bum...
Shoot4fun
Drone bum...
Nice breakdown. Seems the ex-military presenter may not have seen much combat in their tour if he/she found a little drone so terrifying. Don't get me wrong! I realize the potential for our little birds to do damage, but geez. People need to grow a pair. Too many wearing their panties too tight, me thinks... ?
Shoot4fun
Drone bum...
Why would you do that to a poor P4!?!? I mean, P1 or P2 maybe. Even a P3 that's had a rough life... That's just wrong!
No - that's not skewed science at all, and disassembling will have had little effect on the terminal ballistics. Not ideal, not least because it opens the door for unscientific criticism, but they did it that way because the light-gas gun that they were using had too small a barrel diameter to accommodate an intact Phantom.
It was a bit distressing to see him breaking it up with a hammer. He was surprised just how tough the casing was though.
I think it is a little skewed. The British have their problems when it comes to shooting things in a test. Details are very important. Is this true?
The Chicken Cannon
Did British train engineers receive help from the FAA about the proper use of a chicken launcher?
www.snopes.com
Last edited:
I think it is a little skewed. The British have their problems when it comes to shooting things in a test. Details are very important. Is this true?
The Chicken Cannon
Did British train engineers receive help from the FAA about the proper use of a chicken launcher?
As your link to Snopes explained, no, it's not true.
And while some details in a test are important, others are not - depending on the dominant mechanisms of the process being tested.
10 ways to prevent plane bird strikes
Hardly a week goes by without a plane somewhere in the US making an emergency landing after hitting birds. As these incidents reach record levels, airports are coming up with increasingly imaginative ways of combating them.
www.bbc.co.uk
Check #8. The Chicken Gun.
It must be the truthful fact, it is reported by that most trusted source ... the BBC. [emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]
I am pretty certain that there really was a tv programme a while back about testing RR Aero Engines to destruction. One of the tests was relative to bird strike and involved doing things to a ridiculously fast chookie. This was a long time before I became interested in uav’s. So it wasn’t what I could call a false memory. Mention is made about the FAA being a source of the Birdie Boom Boom.
Wiki quote, “During the development of the Boeing 757, the cockpit windows were subjected to a "chicken test", where "an anesthetized 4-pound [1.8 kg] chicken was loaded in a pneumatic gun and fired at 360 knots [410 mph; 670 km/h] head-on".[2] It is described as "a very messy test."[2] ??
Another factoid on that page, most bird strikes happen below 500’ ... spot the crossover with uav altitude.
Cheers, Alan.
Similar threads
- Deleted member 130213
- General Discussion
